2023’s stupid Time Magazine Top 100 in AI List: Media, AI: Time’s Top 100 AI Innovators List – Social Panic (coldstreams.com)

2024’s is even dumber: The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024 | TIME

Leaves out Elon Musk and Sam Altman but includes actress Scarlett Johanson and YouTuber Marques Brownlee (I’m a fan of his for what he does but he’s not an AI innovator).

I’m not going to review Time’s process in 2024 – it is likely the same, bogus process they used in 2023 – a group of people, all of whom have degrees and experience in the humanities, and zero STEM qualifications, judge STEM:

Who did the selection? Reviewing the list of Time’s Editors and Writers who participated in the selection process not one has a STEM degree. 100% have degrees in the humanities and arts. Journalism is an unusual field where 27-year-olds with a BA in English are given titles such as “Senior Climate Correspondent” or “Senior Technology Reporter”. Imagine if that approach was applied to other fields – say, power engineering, biochemistry, or medicine. It is doubtful there are many 27-year-olds with a BA in English who have the title “Senior Power Engineer”. Would we have better reporting if reporters had solid backgrounds in the fields they cover? The presumption is they “learn by interviewing experts” and perhaps self-study of difficult subjects (doubtful any have done self-study of differential equations). Is this approach adequate for expert level understanding?

Read last year’s report to see why TIME’s selection, completed by unqualified journalists, is bull shit: Media, AI: Time’s Top 100 AI Innovators List – Social Panic (coldstreams.com)

Imagine if literature awards were judged by a panel of 30 engineers, having degrees in engineering – see the problem?